How should we respond if Russia invades the Ukraine? (2 Viewers)

[Mookie]

It will have to be NATO driven, but I see big sanctions as being the only play - we have major leverage there.  Going to war with Russia, or even amassing troops at some new border, would be exceptionally stupid on the heels of our withdrawal from Afghanistan.    

 

[rockaction]

It will have to be NATO driven, but I see big sanctions as being the only play - we have major leverage there.  Going to war with Russia, or even amassing troops at some new border, would be exceptionally stupid on the heels of our withdrawal from Afghanistan.    

Is completely off of the table given their nuclear arsenal. 

 

[timschochet]

Is completely off of the table given their nuclear arsenal. 

Suppose they didn’t have one. Could we take them out? 

 

[rockaction]

Suppose they didn’t have one. Could we take them out? 

My mind and spirit hates war, so I don't really think in war hypotheticals. It doesn't interest me in the least. I am not strong with game theory or anything that involves preparations for others to die. Just the way I'm wired. 

 

[Don't Toews Me]

This post makes me want to ask a serious question: WHY is Putin doing this? What does Russia gain by invading Ukraine? 

I'll give this a shot. But there is no clear answer and there is overlap.

Theory 1: Putin wants to rebuild the old empire. As in, actually rebuild it. Former Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz stated this back in 2017.  Putin reportedly told Bush in 08 that "you have to understand that Ukraine is not even a country." Furthermore, 79% of Russians tied reported the action (at the time) of taking Crimea as the revival of Russia as a great power and a return to Russia’s rightful dominance of the former Soviet Union. The counter point here is, if this were the primary motivation, why did he stop with Crimea in 2014? Think rationally here. If you're Vladimir Putin and your motivation is to rebuild the physical empire that was once the USSR, why would you take a sliver in 2014, allow the West to arm and train the rest of Ukraine and allow the Ukranian military to significantly strengthen, and then finish the job 7 years later? You've just raised the costs on yourself quite a bit. What did Napoleon say? "Gentlemen. If you're going to take Vienna, take it." But in this view, Russia views the existence of Ukraine as an insult. In other words, it is a reminder of a chaotic time in Russian history as a former Putin advisor describes.

Theory 2: Prevent the eastward expansion of NATO. So Russia frames this as a defensive action. The Russian government claims the US made certain promises about the expansion of NATO. Oddly enough, Gorbachev has refuted this and says the US made no such promise. Maybe Putin is trying to secure some agreement that Ukraine will never be part of NATO, and if he cannot secure such assurances, he will act unilaterally. The other thing is, perhaps this would be a concern if the issue was actually imminent. But Ukraine is not joining NATO tomorrow. 

Theory 3: Extract something of value from the West and simultaneously push Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence and force political change in Ukraine. "If you don't want war, you'll move your political sentiment to a more tolerable version for Russia." This is a message to the Ukrainian government as well as to the Ukrainian people. One theory about the buildup in the spring is that Putin did it to extract a high-level meeting with Biden. This gives the impression that Russia is a great power like it was. But there are reasons to refute that, this piece goes into detail there. Or perhaps the "something of value" isn't a meeting this time (although it does appear they will meet virtually). Maybe this centers around Ukraine receiving missile defense systems. So Putin is threatening invasion as a negotiating tactic. Coercive diplomacy. Bully Ukraine into being what you want them to be and bully them into acting the way you want them to act. Yanukovysch was pro-Russian, Zelensky is much less pro-Russian than Yanukovych was to say the least. This somewhat frames the threat of invasion as a bluff. Maybe Putin is generating a crisis to change the calculus of this situation for Russia. Maybe he is generating a crisis to see if Biden and the West make an error and then he'll use that error to act.

This is not comprehensive. Simply an overview of some theories out there. There could be overlap here as well with these. The latter two are a little more rational than the first one. Not saying I agree (as I refuted #2 with Gorbachev's statement), but I am saying they come from a more rational standpoint. Maybe for Putin, this isn't a bluff. Maybe it's do or die time. Maybe he recognizes the US is re-orienting towards China and sees an opportunity here. 

 

[quick-hands]

Suppose they didn’t have one. Could we take them out? 

But they do.   Why would you ask a question  like that?     

Do you think if putin wasn't leader of Russia would they invade?

 

[timschochet]

But they do.   Why would you ask a question  like that?     

Do you think if putin wasn't leader of Russia would they invade?

1. Just for the hell of it. 
2. I have no idea. 

 

[Don't Toews Me]

Tim.  I'd like to mock biden.   But there is nothing we can do.   We aren't going to war even if Ukraine was nato.    And they aren't.

Biden will live with the consequences.   The real question is this a direct result of how we left Afghanistan.    Which I think it is.

Biden and our woke generals don't look impressive.

You bring up a valid point. Sometimes I wonder if the US abandoning allies over the decades (and especially recently with Afghanistan and abandoning the Kurds in Syria) is sending the message to our enemies on a larger scale with regards to China and Russia that our resolve is weak. Nothing happens in a vacuum. From Putin's standpoint, perhaps he sees a country in the US who doesn't actually mean business. A country who abandons allies. A country that, when push comes to shove, maybe will abandon Ukraine. US talks a big game. So why not up the ante? Maybe it'll get him what he wants. And to Ukraine, do you want to ally yourself with the US's shotty record? Look at the Kurds in Syria. Had to ask Syria and Russia to help stop the Turkish assault in 2019. Do you want the same fate, Ukraine? If you're Ukraine, do you actually think the US means business this time around and is as invested in your security as you are? "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" type of message. 

US foreign policy has been a joke for a long time. There will be consequences. Major consequences.

 

[timschochet]

You bring up a valid point. Sometimes I wonder if the US abandoning allies over the decades (and especially recently with Afghanistan and abandoning the Kurds in Syria) is sending the message to our enemies on a larger scale with regards to China and Russia that our resolve is weak. Nothing happens in a vacuum. From Putin's standpoint, perhaps he sees a country in the US who doesn't actually mean business. A country who abandons allies. A country that, when push comes to shove, maybe will abandon Ukraine. US talks a big game. So why not up the ante? Maybe it'll get him what he wants. And to Ukraine, do you want to ally yourself with the US's shotty record? Look at the Kurds in Syria. Had to ask Syria and Russia to help stop the Turkish assault in 2019. Do you want the same fate, Ukraine? If you're Ukraine, do you actually think the US means business this time around and is as invested in your security as you are? "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" type of message. 

US foreign policy has been a joke for a long time. There will be consequences. Major consequences.

You’ve made a lot of good points (you usually do.) 

There is another argument to be made as well: I am no isolationist, I strongly believe in a firm NATO, but why after the dissolution of the Soviet Union were we so eager to extend NATO to so many of these Eastern European countries who were former members of the Warsaw Bloc? It seems to me that we were just asking for trouble by doing that. 
 

France and England made the same mistake after World War I by guaranteeing the independence of all of the newly formed nations surrounding Germany: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. in the end they couldn’t protect any of them and the only guarantee was a war with Germany. I am not excusing the actions of Nazi Germany then and I’m not excusing the actions of Putin now. But it seems to me that, over the last 30 years, we’ve shown some pretty poor judgment in dealing with Russia. 

 

[RCon]

But it seems to me that, over the last 30 years, we’ve shown some pretty poor judgment in dealing with Russia.

I was thinking about this earlier while reading @Don't Toews Me's post.  I think our long-term foreign policy suffers from the way in which we elect a single POTUS rather than electing individual cabinet positions. Before anyone jumps on this, I recognize that the latter would be impractical and I'm not suggesting we should.

That said, my point is that the country may well have one foreign policy strategy, something happens to the economy, and we shift gears to another foreign policy strategy because voters wanted a change in leadership due to economic factors.  In other words, we frequently change our overall foreign policy direction due not to voters necessarily wanting to change strategies but because voters wanted to change something else unrelated to foreign policy.

 

[Insein]

This is obviously not something Putin has thought up in the last year. He's had this in the works for a decade plus now. There were murmurs of a Ukraine take over as far back as 2014 (and probably further if we search).

I don't think Putin wants open war but he does want the influence over the region and to keep it out if NATO hands. He probably had something in the works during Obama's term and was going to unleash it during Hillary's term but then Trump got in. Now that's not to say he held back for his "buddy" the Donald. It's more that Trump was a hot head and made impulsive decisions. This is both good and bad when dealing in foreign relations. It makes things volatile but it also keeps your enemies from figuring out what you'll do. 

Putin is making moves with Biden in office again. Even Joe's most ardent supporters have to admit that he's been a debacle in foreign relations and projects no confidence for our allies worldwide that America will do something drastic. Putin sees a chance to get whatever he's after before 2024. So he's pushing the chips into the middle. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

In other words, we frequently change our overall foreign policy direction due not to voters necessarily wanting to change strategies but because voters wanted to change something else unrelated to foreign policy.

Of course. Many voters wanted an end to mean tweets, not a border crisis, an inflation crisis, an Afghanistan crisis, and a vaccination mandate cluster, but here we are.

 

[quick-hands]

You’ve made a lot of good points (you usually do.) 

There is another argument to be made as well: I am no isolationist, I strongly believe in a firm NATO, but why after the dissolution of the Soviet Union were we so eager to extend NATO to so many of these Eastern European countries who were former members of the Warsaw Bloc? It seems to me that we were just asking for trouble by doing that. 
 

We wanted to cut the legs out from Russia. But we didn't want to elimate their buffer zone completely.   Biden won't change the status quo.   He is run by his people.    

A leader like Roosevelt or Churchill runs his people. Since Eisenhower the only two presidents not run by the establishment  where Reagan and trump.

 

[quick-hands]

Suppose they didn’t have one. Could we take them out? 

I'll say yes.   As long as they don't have anything but pitch forks.    Do you concour? 

 

[rockaction]

I was thinking about this earlier while reading @Don't Toews Me's post.  I think our long-term foreign policy suffers from the way in which we elect a single POTUS rather than electing individual cabinet positions. Before anyone jumps on this, I recognize that the latter would be impractical and I'm not suggesting we should.

That said, my point is that the country may well have one foreign policy strategy, something happens to the economy, and we shift gears to another foreign policy strategy because voters wanted a change in leadership due to economic factors.  In other words, we frequently change our overall foreign policy direction due not to voters necessarily wanting to change strategies but because voters wanted to change something else unrelated to foreign policy.

Congratulations, you just made the exact same argument that Ayn Rand did for isolationism. The exact same one. 

 

[timschochet]

Congratulations, you just made the exact same argument that Ayn Rand did for isolationism. The exact same one. 

I’ve been a pretty steady Rand reader over the years and I don’t recall that particular argument. 
She was an isolationist though, and it was one area I think she was demonstrably wrong about. If Ayn Rand had been in charge of foreign policy after World War II, we would have lost all of Western Europe to Communism. Her world view simply would not permit the idea that large government actions like the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift could be necessary to preserve human freedom. 

 

[rockaction]

I’ve been a pretty steady Rand reader over the years and I don’t recall that particular argument. 
She was an isolationist though, and it was one area I think she was demonstrably wrong about. If Ayn Rand had been in charge of foreign policy after World War II, we would have lost all of Western Europe to Communism. Her world view simply would not permit the idea that large government actions like the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift could be necessary to preserve human freedom. 

She made the argument that changes in administrations lead to inconsistent foreign policy because different administrations prioritize different things and act differently towards other countries than their predecessors. She said that these inconsistencies disrupt a rational foreign policy that has an end goal. I can probably pull some quotes if you'd like. 

 

[timschochet]

She made the argument that changes in administrations lead to inconsistent foreign policy because different administrations prioritize different things and act differently towards other countries than their predecessors. She said that these inconsistencies disrupt a rational foreign policy that has an end goal. I can probably pull some quotes if you'd like. 

No I take your word. I don’t recall reading that but it’s a good argument on paper. In actuality it hasn’t really caused us too many problems as a nation, since after 1945 until Donald Trump there hasn’t been too much strategic difference between the parties: tactical yes but the overall goals were definitely the same. That’s true of every President since 1945. Donald Trump was the first one to state that everything we did should be transactional and based on short term gain. 

 

[rockaction]

Or I can't find them neatly and her copyrights are such that it's hard to find those essays. But I distinctly remember that being a reason for her reluctance to get involved internationally with state action. 

 

[timschochet]

Also, I completely reject this argument that Putin  hesitated prior to Biden because Trump was so unpredictable. We have never had a more predictable President in foreign affairs than Donald Trump. 

 

[rockaction]

No I take your word. I don’t recall reading that but it’s a good argument on paper. In actuality it hasn’t really caused us too many problems as a nation, since after 1945 until Donald Trump there hasn’t been too much strategic difference between the parties: tactical yes but the overall goals were definitely the same. That’s true of every President since 1945. Donald Trump was the first one to state that everything we did should be transactional and based on short term gain. 

I think we both agree that Trump was a disaster, though I lack the expertise in foreign policy to both determine exactly what he did and what the ultimate goal was of that which he did. (Which must have been something.)

 

[timschochet]

I think we both agree that Trump was a disaster, though I lack the expertise in foreign policy to both determine exactly what he did and what the ultimate goal was of that which he did. (Which must have been something.)

He wasn’t necessarily a disaster because he was too timid to actually pull out of NATO and Korea much as he wanted to. He also did ultimately listen to his generals a few times and made some decent decisions. But his move to abandon the Kurds was terrible IMO and will likely have worse long term ramifications for us than leaving Afghanistan. 
Trump was a coward who was scared to make ANY move that might make his base of voters angry. That’s one reason why I’ve never been afraid of a Trump dictatorship: he’s too chicken to ever do it. 

 

[rockaction]

He wasn’t necessarily a disaster because he was too timid to actually pull out of NATO and Korea much as we wanted to. He also did ultimately listen to his generals a few times and made some decent decisions. But his move to abandon the Kurds was terrible IMO and will likely have worse long term ramifications for us than leaving Afghanistan. 

Right, he did not pull out of NATO and Korea. And there were things that I personally agreed with (that you wouldn't, so I chose not to really go that far into it) that more traditional presidents coming from the center-left would never have done. Moving the embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, for one. Withdrawing from our nuclear agreement with Iran, for another. I supported both of those. Striking Syria and then withdrawing I don't know enough about to criticize, though it seems that many experienced foreign policy watchers were absolutely appalled. (But that isn't authority or the final say to me, since foreign policy experts are often just dead wrong in their assessment of things.) So, I know the basics of what went on, but lack the expertise, really, to critique too harshly or deeply. Vehemently opposed his trades and tariffs, redrafting NAFTA, starting a trade war with China, etc. I did not mind him pulling out of the TPP, which I know you love, but is really a toothless bit of legislation that is Asia-centric and friendly to their aims and not ours, IMO.  

So it's muddy. 

 

[RCon]

Congratulations, you just made the exact same argument that Ayn Rand did for isolationism. The exact same one. 

She may have, I don't remember.  To me, it doesn't seem like a particularly good argument for isolationism, or non-isolationism, or any particular foreign policy strategy.  It's more an argument that there could be benefit to voting separately for cabinet level positions, as opposed to a single executive (obviously, there could be negatives to this as well).

 

[FairWarning]

Throw sanctions at Russia for not having an all-inclusive military and for using weapons that harm the environment.  

 

[Sam Quentin]

Nuclear war with Russia is on the table 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0brtF9rK44

 

[Redwes25]

Looks like Biden has said our troops won't be involved, which I think is a good thing - https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/biden-putin-us-troops/index.html

Personally if they invade I would do real sanctions unlike the minor stuff we have done in the past.  Cut them off from SWIFT for example.  

 

[The General]

Nuclear war with Russia is on the table 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0brtF9rK44

Good to know that guy is insane. 

 

[Insein]

Sounds like Biden is just letting Russia have part of Ukraine. Or whoever is calling the shots. 

AP - Biden assures Ukraine’s leader of US support to deter Russia

Despite the comforting headline, buried within the story is this excerpt. 

"The two called on Putin to calm the crisis and urged diplomacy. Biden said the U.S. was prepared to help with “confidence-building measures” to implement a 2015 peace deal.

In a statement after the call with Biden, Ukraine said Zelenskyy was offering “clear proposals to unblock the peace process and is ready to discuss them in various formats.”

Administration officials have suggested that the U.S. will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy within its eastern Donbas region, which is now under de facto control by Russia-backed separatists who rose up against Kyiv in 2014."

 

[Insein]

Now I for one feel that things have gotten to this point with poor diplomacy through Obama and now Bidens team. Whether that was through incompetence or intentional is left for debate. 

If the only way to avoid US ground troops from going to Ukraine is letting Russia have the piece they carefully subverted for the last decade, so be it. Ukraine is not NATO and won't be NATO for a very long time if ever. We really don't owe them anything. 

 

[Insein]

It should also be noted that Psaki denied this in the press briefing when asked directly. 

https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/09/psaki-biden-russia-ukraine-putin-ceding-land/

 

[timschochet]

Now I for one feel that things have gotten to this point with poor diplomacy through Obama and now Bidens team. Whether that was through incompetence or intentional is left for debate. 

If the only way to avoid US ground troops from going to Ukraine is letting Russia have the piece they carefully subverted for the last decade, so be it. Ukraine is not NATO and won't be NATO for a very long time if ever. We really don't owe them anything. 

It’s unbelievable that you criticize Biden and Obama’s diplomacy and fail to mention the guy in between who was far worse than both put together. I’m mean it’s really embarrassing for you. 

 

[Insein]

It’s unbelievable that you criticize Biden and Obama’s diplomacy and fail to mention the guy in between who was far worse than both put together. I’m mean it’s really embarrassing for you. 

You mean the guy who gave Ukraine weapons to defend themselves. The guy who was crazy enough to keep Putin from moving forward with an invasion. Yea dare I leave out the guy that managed to not have a potential ally invaded where we say "best we can do for you is to put sanctions on him. You might want to give up your Eastern front though in case he's serious."

 

[timschochet]

You mean the guy who gave Ukraine weapons to defend themselves. The guy who was crazy enough to keep Putin from moving forward with an invasion. Yea dare I leave out the guy that managed to not have a potential ally invaded where we say "best we can do for you is to put sanctions on him. You might want to give up your Eastern front though in case he's serious."

It’s just silly. He was an embarrassment. And this whole “Trump was so crazy that Putin hesitated” thing is the most ridiculous argument yet. Putin’s timing has to do with Ukraine not with Trump. Trump was the most predictable foreign policy President in my lifetime and Putin never had to wonder what he would have done: thats easy. He (Trump) would have rolled over. No US President since FDR was ever more weak and servile when it comes to Russia than Trump was. 
As I wrote in the OP, it really doesn’t matter anymore. We’re in the situation we’re in, and we would have been in this situation even if Trump had never been elected: this is not his fault and he should not be blamed. But on the other hand he shouldn’t be given any credit either, because he was thoroughly incompetent. 

 

[lazyike]

Like most everyone else here I too would oppose any action that involves our military with the hope that tougher sanctions that would be bolstered  with help from our European allies would dissuade Putin from moving in. I also would support additional military aid to the Ukraine. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/us-and-europe-ready-significant-and-severe-sanctions-if-russia-invades-ukraine-523790

 

[E Street Brat]

We have never used our military to defend Israel, or even threatened to do so. 

Didn't we deploy Patriot's in Israel during Desert Storm?

 

[leftcoastguy7]

Are hypersonic missiles really such a big deal? I mean they are cool and fly fast but I don't see how they would be much use vs. the US.

Even if Russia shot hundreds of these and took out our silos in minutes, we could still destroy their world with our nuke subs. Can you shoot a hypersonic missile at a sub lol

 

[Da Guru]

Yes, I'm sure.  Russia and China are going to test the US resolve by invading neighboring countries.  We can't allow them to do this.  

Tawain and Ukraine are basically on their own in terms of military responses. USA is not going to go halfway around the world to battle for a border and a island and risk a world war.

Whatever happens will be economic.

 

[Max Power]

I'm going to defer to Hunter on this one

 

[timschochet]

So far Biden’s diplomacy and threats of more sanctions seem to be working. Putin appears to be hesitating. If he backs down altogether that will be a huge win for Biden. 

 

[supermike80]

So far Biden’s diplomacy and threats of more sanctions seem to be working. Putin appears to be hesitating. If he backs down altogether that will be a huge win for Biden. 

Can't argue that.  His approach has been really good I feel.  Fingers crossed

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Interesting piece on how the US handling of the Ukraine situation might impact China's thinking about Taiwan.

 

[Max Power]

'Be afraid': Ukraine hit by cyberattack as Russia moves more troops

• Kyiv says around 70 government sites hit by cyberattack
  
• "Drumbeat of war is sounding loud" says U.S. diplomat
  
• Moscow says it could take military action unless demands met
  
• NATO says it will sign cyber cooperation pact with Kyiv
  

KYIV/MOSCOW, Jan 14 (Reuters) - Ukraine was hit by a cyberattack splashing a warning across government websites to "be afraid and expect the worst", while Russia, which has massed 100,000 troops on its neighbour's frontier, released pictures of more of its forces on the move.

The cyber attack unfolded hours after talks wrapped up with no breakthrough between Russia and Western allies, which fear Moscow could launch a new military assault on a country it invaded in 2014.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/expect-worst-ukraine-hit-by-cyberattack-russia-moves-more-troops-2022-01-14/

Possibly escalating. 

 

[Phil Elliott]

Reports that Russia is ready to start the war against Itself to justify the invasion of Ukraine. 

 

[tymarsas]

Taking pictures of your own miltary and sending them to your enemies saying "look at what we're doing" seems like a bluff to me.

 

[Shula-holic]

Possibly escalating. 

It appears like it’s about to get really nasty over there 

 

[kwille]

How about we tell Putin he can have Texas if he leaves Ukraine alone. He's a horsey guy so maybe.

 

[Sleestak]

So, when do the Russkies kick this thing off?  How long will it take them to capture Kyiv?  Will the Baltic states and Poland ask NATO to bring troops forward?  Interesting times.